Hamel- who was a Dutch prisoner in Korea due to the shipwreck. He wrote journals of the Korean society and his opinions about it.
P
Mainly in Korea in the early 17th centuries; however, Japan and Holland were also included as the minority places.
P
Author’s comparison between their own culture and Korea’s.
A
VOC- which is Dutch East Indies Company.
R
Hamel’s job was a record keeper (chronicler) during his journeys and to write memories of the trip.
T
The point of view of a foreigner in an unfamiliar culture and its descriptions.
S
This journal was the first written document of Korea by a European.This document also contained lots of Hamel’s perspective and historic events as well.
Many Hats of the Historian (8/17/11)
Vocabulary
heretical- a belief which is not accepted to a group of religious people
faggot- a bunch of sticks
Eucharist- is a celebration among the Catholics which they eat bread and drink wine; presumably, they are the Christ's flesh and blood
abstain- to prevent one from enjoyment
penance- a punishment which is volunteered
beseeching- to ask in desperation
source- is an origin of something
In section 1, Heretical Beliefs, the historian gives his account of a historical event. What is happening to Hogsflesh? What is the historian's “story” or main point of the article?Hogsflesh had a penalty for expressing that: Virgin Mary wasn't to be honored and in the Eucharist, Christ's body was nowhere to be seen and without any admissions to the priest, he could still be saved. With these statements said, Hogsflesh was to confess his heresy and join the religious procession still with himself carrying the faggot. The historian's "story" or main point of the article is that at the time people had less rights to speak their own voice and they would often be forced to complete their penance.
What are the roles of a historian defined by John Arnold? Do you agree or disagree with his assumptions? Can you think of any other roles? The roles of a historian defined by John Arnold are read and report records. In addition, they also act as an interpreter by filling in the gaps of history. I do agree with his assumptions, because in order for us and the future students to learn history, history should always be reported and researched from the historians. Other roles that the historians may have is that they can try to connect the past and the present day today.
What is meant by “treat(ing) their sources with fidelity?” Remember to put your response in your own words. Why is it important to remember this when reading historical references? By "trea(ting) their sources with fidelity" means that the historians shouldn't put on an act about the records. One should reveal and treat history as it is- that is without any personal feelings into it. This is important to remember when reading historical references, because some of the historians who reports the information may be reporting with their own point of view, but not in the actual historic perspective.
How can a single event be interpreted in more than one way? Can you think of an event in your life that historians could interpret with differing points of view? A single event can be interpreted in more than one way depending on who the interpreter is. Not everyone thinks in a same way and both may comprehend the event differently and write it in their own perspectives. An event in my life that historians could interpret with different points of view is that I have a Korean citizenship, however I have a Japanese green-card and lived there for a while. A patriotic Korean historian may interpret this as myself being a traitor of Korea for being associated with Japan after years of conflict with them. On the other hand, a Japanese historian may perceive this as a sign of peace between the two countries for having a Korean living in Japan for a period of time and etc.
Talk to a family member or friend about something that happened to you both a long time ago. Examine how you both remember the incident and write about it. With that in mind, when attaching meaning to history, is it possible for a historian to be completely objective? Use examples from the incident you just discussed to reinforce your response. An incident that something happened to both me and my friend is that when we were arguing about who spend more time working on our project. Looking at it now, we both think that it was a childish argument and from the start we shouldn't of brought up the topic at all. I don't think it is possible for a historian to be completely objective, because they all might have different opinions about the incident. One may feel as if the argument wasn't childish and that my friend and I should of stuck with the conversation to see who actually spent more time in it. On the other hand, another may feel as if the argument between me and my friend was childish and was a waste of time even hearing about it.
What problems may arise when historians practice subjective history? In what ways may subjective history be beneficial to the study of history? Think back to the incident you just discussed with your family member or friend. Why did it make sense for you to remember the event the way you did and for the other person to remember it the way he or she did? What does this tell us about history? While historians practice subjective history, it may be a problem due to their two different perspectives. However subjective history can be beneficial to the study of history, because we can see examples of the way how human minds work and the different view of what many historians think. It makes sense for us to remember the event as we did, because we both had disagreements due to our different point of view about the incident. Even if we have the same conversation again, we would probably have the disagreements among ourselves. This tells us about history that not everything in the textbook is true. It ways depends on who wrote/reported the information on the textbook and etc.
Why is every historian "a storyteller?" If all historians are storytellers and there are myriad versions of every story, can we trust historians? Why or why not? Every historians are "storytellers", because they report stuffs from their point of view, but not in what it would have seen in real life. If all historians are storytellers and there are myriad versions of every story, we wouldn't be able to trust historians. Some of the given reports may state what is opposite of what others reports state. The people who writes the reports will probably be prejudice and write down ideas that contains some of their own thoughts.
How did your view of history and historians change based on this reading? How will you approach history now that you have explored these views? After this reading, my view of history and historians changed. Now that I am aware of these information, I would approach history by always being conscious of that not everyone will read/write the texts in the history book as everyone else such that- it will include some of the historians' own ideas and thoughts.
Why is an understanding of culture necessary in order to understand history? (8/12/11)
In the perspective of a foreigner in a country, one may be fast judging about that nation's history without the knowledge of its culture. There are three types of elements of culture, and the following are: artifacts, mentifacts, and sociofacts. These three elements make up the definition of culture- the way of life in which common people in a populated place share. Many individuals may believe that culture is what effects history. For example, one of Korea's culture in the past and the present is the respect of elders. By this, we can understand history by knowing that some of Confucius' words are still big influences to many of the Asian countries. In the perspective of an Asian who sees this culture being followed, they may think that one is very well mannered or that one shows lots of respect. On the other hand, the perspective of a foreigner may be thought differently; one may think that people in Asia bow so frequently due to their back problems or etc. To sum up, there are some people who miss interpret the country's culture; therefore, it may be a challenge to them to understand its history. The understanding of a nation's culture IS necessary in order to understand its history as well.
Roles of the Historian (8/18/11)
APPARTS- Hamel's Journal (8/17/11)
Many Hats of the Historian (8/17/11)
Vocabulary
Why is an understanding of culture necessary in order to understand history? (8/12/11)
In the perspective of a foreigner in a country, one may be fast judging about that nation's history without the knowledge of its culture. There are three types of elements of culture, and the following are: artifacts, mentifacts, and sociofacts. These three elements make up the definition of culture- the way of life in which common people in a populated place share. Many individuals may believe that culture is what effects history. For example, one of Korea's culture in the past and the present is the respect of elders. By this, we can understand history by knowing that some of Confucius' words are still big influences to many of the Asian countries. In the perspective of an Asian who sees this culture being followed, they may think that one is very well mannered or that one shows lots of respect. On the other hand, the perspective of a foreigner may be thought differently; one may think that people in Asia bow so frequently due to their back problems or etc. To sum up, there are some people who miss interpret the country's culture; therefore, it may be a challenge to them to understand its history. The understanding of a nation's culture IS necessary in order to understand its history as well.